Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems

1. There is more evolutionists than creationists in the world, so it
statistically almost impossible that all creationist debaters are better
in stage that best evolutionist debater.

2. There has been written debates too. For example, few months ago in
Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald's blog-debate between AiG and
Skeptics of Australia. (Yes, I have read original pages. In fact I
informed readers of newsgroups sfnet.keskustelu.evoluutio and
sfnet.keskustelu.skeptismi when debate start, and after debate there
were some discussions, and a Finnish skeptic admitted that AiG won).

So if ToE is so good theory as you evolutionists have claimed, why we
creationists win almost all debates? I think that only valid explanation
is that your theory is NOT so good. In fact I think that whole
evolutionism isn't so good. I think that our victories in debates
clearly indicates that creationism is better option than evolutionism,
naturalism, materialism, atheism etc in all quostions related these
isms.

"Every test that was made, trying to calibrate their equipment with zero
14C present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic
items like various carbonate rocks contained enough 14C to be dated at
between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained
measureable 14C."http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

--
--TJT--
R. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectualy
fulfilled atheist." The failure of Darwin's theory on the molecular
scale may cause him to feel less fulfilled...
- Behe: Darwin's Black Box, p. 250

"Abstract
This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the
loss of energy from various parts of the earth's magnetic field. Using
ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains in
minor (non-dipole) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main
(dipole) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with
newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic
Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of
the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the
non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that
30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the
field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its
energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining
reversals of polarity during the Genesis Flood and intensity
fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model:
the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God
created it about 6,000 years ago."

"NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths
of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these
magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions
were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not."

and

"Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real
science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which
can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their
claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be
tested by future data from space missions:

1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect
it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8
percent smaller than its 1975 value.

3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune."

--
--TJT--
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If
ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20).

Kommentit (13)

"Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems"

Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems

1. There is more evolutionists than creationists in the world, so it
statistically almost impossible that all creationist debaters are better
in stage that best evolutionist debater.

2. There has been written debates too. For example, few months ago in
Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald's blog-debate between AiG and
Skeptics of Australia. (Yes, I have read original pages. In fact I
informed readers of newsgroups sfnet.keskustelu.evoluutio and
sfnet.keskustelu.skeptismi when debate start, and after debate there
were some discussions, and a Finnish skeptic admitted that AiG won).

So if ToE is so good theory as you evolutionists have claimed, why we
creationists win almost all debates? I think that only valid explanation
is that your theory is NOT so good. In fact I think that whole
evolutionism isn't so good. I think that our victories in debates
clearly indicates that creationism is better option than evolutionism,
naturalism, materialism, atheism etc in all quostions related these
isms.

"Every test that was made, trying to calibrate their equipment with zero
14C present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic
items like various carbonate rocks contained enough 14C to be dated at
between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained
measureable 14C."http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

--
--TJT--
R. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectualy
fulfilled atheist." The failure of Darwin's theory on the molecular
scale may cause him to feel less fulfilled...
- Behe: Darwin's Black Box, p. 250

"Abstract
This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the
loss of energy from various parts of the earth's magnetic field. Using
ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains in
minor (non-dipole) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main
(dipole) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with
newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic
Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of
the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the
non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that
30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the
field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its
energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining
reversals of polarity during the Genesis Flood and intensity
fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model:
the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God
created it about 6,000 years ago."

"NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths
of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these
magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions
were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not."

and

"Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real
science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which
can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their
claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be
tested by future data from space missions:

1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect
it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8
percent smaller than its 1975 value.

3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune."

--
--TJT--
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If
ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20).